Cover not available
Part of
The Acquisition of Differential Object Marking
Edited by Alexandru Mardale and Silvina Montrul
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 26] 2020
► pp. 21–49

Chapter 1
Acquisition of symmetrical and asymmetrical Differential Object Marking in Estonian

| University of Tartu
| University of Manchester
| University of Manchester
We compared the acquisition of symmetrical and asymmetrical Differential Object Marking (DOM) within Estonian, which employs symmetrical DOM (alternation between overtly case-marked objects) with asymmetrical subsystems (alternation between marked and unmarked objects) for imperatives, impersonal voice constructions and plural objects. This difference in marking symmetry is linked to differences in form frequency and morphological complexity, with both factors affecting language acquisition. Through a detailed corpus analysis, we found that marking symmetry has an effect on one child’s DOM usage at ages 2;0 and 3;0. The child uses more marked objects overall and makes more errors of commission than omission in asymmetrical contexts, using case-marked objects in place of unmarked ones. Morphological complexity and frequency of form-function pairings were found to affect acquisition.
Keywords: child language, Estonian, morphological complexity, case marking, case omission
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Previous research on the acquisition of DOM
    • 2.2Frequency and morphological complexity
    • 2.3DOM in Estonian
    • 2.4Predictions
  • 3.Corpus study: Quantitative analysis
    • 3.1Method
      • Predictors
    • 3.2Results of quantitative analysis
  • 4.Nominative objects and errors in DOM
    • 4.1Nominative objects
      • 4.1.1Imperative clauses
      • 4.1.2Plural objects
    • 4.2Errors
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.26.01vih
References (69)
References
Aguado-Orea, J., & Pine, J. M. 2015. Comparing different models of the development of verb inflection in early child Spanish. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0119613. DOI logo
Aissen, J. L. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. 1988. The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albirini, A. 2015. Factors affecting the acquisition of plural morphology in Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Child Language, 42(4), 734–762.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Ambridge, B. 2017. Syntactic categories in child language acquisition: Innate, induced or illusory? In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 567–580). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. 2015. The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42, 239–273.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Argus, R. 1998. CHILDES’i eesti andmepank ja selle suhtluskeskne analüüs [The Estonian databank on CHILDES and its conversational analysis] (Hendrik, 1.6–2.6). Tallinn:Tallinn University.Google Scholar
2008. Psühholingvistiline katse eesti keele objekti käändevahelduse omandamise uurimise meetodina [Psycholinguistic experiment as a method of studying the acquisition of case alternation of the object in Estonian]. Yearbook of the Estonian Mother Tongue Society, 54, 22–43.Google Scholar
2009a. Acquisition of Estonian: Some typologically relevant features. Sprachtypologie Und Universalienforschung, 62, 91–108.Google Scholar
2009b. The early development of case and number in Estonian. In M. D. Voeikova & U. Stephany (Eds.), Development of nominal inflection in first language acquisition: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 111–152). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. On the acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Estonian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 403–420.Google Scholar
Avram, L. 2015. Editorial: The L1 acquisition of Differential Object Marking. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 331–338.Google Scholar
Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. G. 2015. Understanding and measuring morphological complexity: An introduction. In M. Baerman, D. Brown, & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity (pp. 3–10). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Behrens, H., & Pfänder, S. 2016. Experience counts: Frequencye effects in language acquisition, language change, and language processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bickel, B., & Witzlack-Makarevich, A. 2008. Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In M. Richards & A. L. Malchukov (Eds.), Scales (pp. 1–38). Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2008. Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica, 43(4), 241–267.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Bohnacker, U., & Mohammadi, S. 2012. Acquiring Persian object marking: Balochi learners of L2 Persian. Orientalia Suecana, LXI, 59–89.Google Scholar
Bolonyai, A. 2000. Elective affinities: Language contact in the abstract lexicon and its structural consequences. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(1), 81–106.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Bossong, G. 1983. Animacy and markedness in Universal Grammar. Glossologia, 39, 7–20.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Hopper, P. J. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabašinskienė, I. 2015. Growing knowledge in Differential Object Marking: The view from L1 Lithuanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 60(4), 369–382.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, S. T. (Eds.). 2012. Frequency effects in language representation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehala, M. 2011. The diffusion of impositional innovations in the Estonian object-marking system. Diachronica, 28(3), 324–344.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Erelt, M., & Metslang, H. (Eds.). 2017. Eesti keele süntaks [Syntax of Estonian]. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Gagarina, N. 2004. Does the acquisition of aspect have anything to do with aspectual pairs? ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 33, 39–61.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. 2001. Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Granlund, S., Kołak, J., Vihman, V.-A., Engelmann, F., Lieven, E., Pine, J., Theakston, A., & Ambridge, B. 2019. Language-general and language-specific phenomena in the acquisition of inflectional noun morphology: A cross-linguistic elicited-production study of Polish, Finnish and Estonian. Journal of Memory and Language, 107, 169–194. [URL].
Gries, S. T., & Divjak, D. (Eds.). 2012. Frequency effects in language learning and processing. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Pires, A., & Nediger, W. 2015. The late acquisition of Differential Object Marking by English-Spanish teenagers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 1–19.Google Scholar
Gülzow, I., & Gagarina, N. (Eds.). 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hallap, M., Padrik, M., & Raudik, S. 2014. Käändevormide kasutamise oskus eakohase arenguga vene-eesti kakskeelsetel ning spetsiifilise kõnearengu puudega ükskeelsetel lastel [Estonian case morphology in second language acquisition and Specific Language Impairment]. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu Aastaraamat / Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics, 10, 73–90.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Hoop, H. de, & Malchukov, A. L. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(4), 565–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, T. 2010. Nominal aspect, quantity, and time: The case of the Finnish object. Journal of Linguistics, 46(1), 83.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
2013. On the many faces of incompleteness: Hide-and-seek with the Finnish partitive object. Folia Linguistica, 47(1), 89–112.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Iemmolo, G. 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. STUF– Language Typology and Universals, 66(4), 378–403.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Janssen, B. E. 2016. The acquisition of gender and case in Polish and Russian: A study of monolingual and bilingual children. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kjaerbaek, L., dePont Christensen, R., & Basbøll, H. 2014. Sound structure and input frequency impact on noun plural acquisition: Hypotheses tested on Danish children across different data types. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 47–86.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Laaha, S., & Dressler, W. U. 2012. Suffix predictability and stem transparency in the acquisition of german noun plurals. In F. Kiefer, M. Ladanyi, & P. Siptar (Eds.), Current issues in morphological theory: (Ir)regularity, analogy and frequency (pp. 217–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laaha, S., Kjaerbaek, L., Basbøll, H., & Dressler, W. U. 2011. The impact of sound structure on morphology: An experimental study on the acquisition of German and Danish noun plurals focussing on stem change. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 43(2), 106–126.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Lees, A. 2015. Case alternations in five Finnic languages: Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., & Behrens, H. 2012. Dense sampling. In E. Hoff (Ed.), Research methods in child language: A practical guide (pp. 226–239). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2005. Item-based constructions and the logical problem. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Psychocomputational Models of Human Language Acquisition (pp. 53–68). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metslang, H. 2001. On the developments of the Estonian aspect: The verbal particle “ära.” In O. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), The Circum-Baltic languages, Vol, 2: Grammar and typology (pp. 443–479). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miljan, M., Kaiser, E., & Vihman, V.-A. 2017. Interplay between case, animacy and number: Interpretations of grammatical role in Estonian. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics, 6(1), 55–77.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. 2014. Structural changes in Spanish in the United States: Differential Object Marking in Spanish heritage speakers across generations. Lingua, 151, 177–196.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Ogren, D. 2015a. Differential Object Marking in Estonian: Prototypes, variation, and construction-specificity. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 28, 277–312.Google Scholar
2015b. Word order, information structure and object case in Estonian. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 6(3), 197.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
. DOI logo
2018. Object case variation in Estonian da-infinitive constructions. Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, M. 2008. The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 111–145.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Rubino, R. B., & Pine, J. M. 1998. Subject–verb agreement in Brazilian Portuguese: What low error rates hide. Journal of Child Language, 25(1), 35–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shirai, Y., Slobin, D. I., & Weist, R. E. 1998. Introduction: The acquisition of tense-aspect. First Language, 18, 245–253.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Sinnemäki, K. 2014. A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics, 52(2), 281–313.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Slobin, D. (Ed.). 1985. Cross linguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stoll, S. 2001. The acquisition of Russian aspect. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Tamm, A. 2004. Relations between Estonian aspect, verbs, and case. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
2007. Perfectivity, telicity and Estonian verbs. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 302, 229–255.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Team, R. C. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ticio, E., & Avram, L. 2015. The acquisition of Differential Object Marking in Spanish and Romanian: Semantic scales or semantic features? Revue de Roumaine Linguistique, 60(4), 383–402.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 1992. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torn-Leesik, R., & Vija, M. 2012. Acquisition of the impersonal voice by an Estonian child. Journal of Baltic Studies, 43(2), 251–271.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Vaiss, N. 2004. Eesti keele aspekti väljendusvõimalusi vene keele taustal [Options for expressing the direct object in Estonian compared with Russian] (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Vija, M. 2007. Pronoomenid lapsekeeles: Mõnda mina ja sina omandamisest eesti laste näitel. [Pronouns in child language: Some thoughts on the acquisition of I and you, based on Estonian]. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics, 3, 373–384.Google Scholar
Xanthos, A., Laaha, S., Gillis, S., Stephany, U., Aksu-Koç, A., Christofidou, A., Gagarina, N., Hrzica, G., Ketrez, F. N., Kilani-Schoch, M., Korecky-Kröll, K., Kovačević, M., Laalo, K., Palmović, Pfeiler, B., Voeikova, M. D., & Dressler, W. U. 2011. On the role of morphological richness in the early development of noun and verb inflection. First Language, 31(4), 461–479.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Zupping, S. 2016. Zupping corpus. <[URL]> (15 January, 2020).
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Tamm, Anne
2024. Methodological solutions for researching the variation of partitives in languages with rich nominal morphology. Linguistic Variation DOI logo
Sagna, Serge, Virve‑Anneli Vihman, Marilyn Vihman & Dunstan Brown
2022. The acquisition of demonstratives in a complex noun class system. Word Structure 15:3 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
VIHMAN, VIRVE-ANNELI, FELIX ENGELMANN, ELENA V. M. LIEVEN & ANNA L. THEAKSTON
2021. Many ways to decline a noun: elicitation of children’s novel noun inflection in Estonian. Language and Cognition 13:4 ► pp. 693 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.